Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators for their comments and thank the Whips for agreeing to give the Bill priority. It is hoped to have it passed by the end of the month. While I accept discussion has been curtailed, a number of interesting points have been raised, some of which I will ignore as they were political.

Much of the Bill concerns the markets in financial instruments directive but the other items referred to, in particular section 19, do not come from Europe but are relevant to the ordinary person. Section 19 aims to provide for a system of regulation of non-deposit taking lenders. This in turn will bring their lending activities within the scope of the Financial Regulator's consumer protection code. This is of great interest to ordinary people. I am sure Senators have met constituents recently who have dealt with such financial institutions. While the main thrust of the Bill concerns MiFID and is not relevant to the ordinary punter, section 19 is certainly relevant to what is happening at street level.

I take Senator Twomey's point with regard to hospital consultants and I bow to his superior knowledge on such matters. Various Ministers are trying to bring competition to many of the professional sectors, where cartels are not supposed to be allowed. While I am sure the relevant Minister has already heard this point, it is interesting to hear it made from the Senator's position of knowledge.

I do not wish to address the issue of Shannon on this occasion. Senator Kelly raised several interesting points and in particular referred to the other member states. The most recent information I have is somewhat out of date as it is five weeks old. Ireland moved quickly in this regard and was the third state to notify the Commission that it had transposed the directive. However, as of five weeks ago, on 12 September, ten member states had yet to notify the Commission that they had transposed the directive. A number of these are expected to meet the deadline but it is likely a few will not.

As for states that fail to meet the 1 November deadline, it is likely they will be allowed to continue to operate on the basis of their existing authorisation. However, they could not be allowed to provide the new MiFID activities, such as the provision of investment advice, until such time as the directive was fully transposed in the relevant states. The idea was that every state would be involved and that there would not be a situation such as that which arose in the early 1990s. The Senator also referred to the sub-prime market, which section 19 is intended to curb.

Senator Boyle made the point that this is a miscellaneous Bill. That is a reality of life. When a Department produces a relatively small Bill, sections in the Department and Ministers will try to add miscellaneous parts which are often of value. While I understand the point that this might detract from a Bill, the introduction of legislation is often used as an opportunity. Small items may knock around in Departments for a long time and, as they are not regarded as important enough to be dealt with in a separate Bill, it is necessary to tag them onto another Bill. That is what happened in this case.

The Markets in Financial Instruments and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill began as a relatively small one, with only eight sections relating to MiFID, but along the way it gathered a further 17 sections. While many of these originated in the Department, section 19 grew out of the concerns expressed in contributions in the Houses. It had been intended to act in this area later in the year but Members in the other House wanted the matter addressed and wanted amendments introduced. While we understood the idea behind this, it is sometimes difficult to find the correct legal wording, which is why a further amendment will be brought forward next week — it is still being checked by the Attorney General's office.

With regard to the recent debate on the sub-prime issue, there have been many recent developments in global financial markets and it is important to address the quality of Ireland's financial system and its regulatory regime — I understand Senator Quinn's point in this regard. The most important point that needs to be made in a national context is that our banking system is well capitalised, profitable, liquid and soundly regulated. I am not an authority in this area and I do not know much about the detail of complaints from Australia. Senator Quinn knows more about the matter than I do. I am not certain if this is a case of sour grapes or whether it fully stands up.

The system here is soundly regulated, as has been confirmed by the conclusions of a recent International Monetary Fund report, in which it was noted that the Central Bank is satisfied that major lenders have a very solid financial base and stress testing by the regulator has shown that banks are well placed to weather any possible storms. As to the effectiveness of the regulatory system, the IMF report explicitly acknowledged the strength of the financial regulatory and supervisory system in recent times and indicated that the system in place in Ireland reflects international best practice standards. It is vital that we do not allow an impression to be given that insider trading or similar practices take place here because such a perception would have serious consequences for business. I do not believe this impression is as widely held internationally as Senator Quinn suggests. The IMF report has given Ireland a clean bill of health in that regard but if certain operators seek to circumvent our regulations, we will have to amend the rules, close loopholes and maintain vigilance. Our reputation is all-important.

Senators took the opportunity to raise some extraneous matters, including the forthcoming budget. The Minister for Finance has indicated that while the economic climate may not be as benign next year as in recent years, cuts are not planned. Tax revenues have increased by 8% and 9% in recent years and will probably increase by approximately 4% next year. While this reduction in revenue requires new approaches, the overall amount available for the provision of services and investment will not be reduced next year. On the contrary, it will continue to increase, albeit at a lower level than in previous years.

Irrespective of whether it involves a Department or a household budget, a lower percentage growth in spending power in a given year does not spell disaster but provides an opportunity to take a more frugal attitude to spending money. No cutbacks are planned and tax revenues and Government expenditure will increase next year, albeit at a lower rate than in previous years.

The Office of Public Works is heavily involved in the decentralisation programme. As a representative from Dublin, Senator Kelly may not be a strong advocate of the programme. Once completed, all previous waves of decentralisation were universally regarded as a complete success. Thousands of civil servants decentralised to various locations under these earlier programmes. The current programme may have been ambitious in its timing but no one would move if the process had been scheduled to take place over a ten or 20 year period.